Parker v. District of Columbia (PDF), 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. App. 2007) IS a cite! And yes, it was accepted for review by the Supreme Court. But since you are not bright enough to know that without a link, here it is: http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

... The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Second Amendment this term was precipitated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision in Parker v. District of Columbia (PDF), 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. App. 2007). There, the D.C. Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that three District of Columbia laws regarding private gun ownership - namely a ban on new registration of handguns, a ban on carrying a pistol without a license, and a requirement that firearms be kept unloaded and locked - violated the Second Amendment. The court held that individuals have a right under the Second Amendment to own handguns for their own personal protection and keep them in their home without placing a trigger lock on them. This is the first decision since the Supreme Court decided Miller in which a federal court overturned a law regulating firearms based on the Second Amendment.

Following the D.C. Circuit’s decision not to rehear the case, the District of Columbia Government filed a petition for certiorari for review of the decision by the Supreme Court. The documents before the Supreme Court at the petition for certiorari stage have been collected here.

On November 20, 2007, the Supreme Court granted (PDF) the petition for certiorari. The Court framed the question for which it granted review as follows: “Whether the following provisions – D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 – violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The briefs on the merits by the District of Columbia and respondent Dick Anthony Heller, as well as amicus briefs by some 67 “friends of the court,” have been collected here.

In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment. ...

Max M. Haiflich, Jr.Free = no regulations = survival of the fittest = SomaliaSo in summation, the Conservative Republican’s Political Platform is, LIES, MORE LIES, OUTRAGIOUS LIES, and DAMN STUPID LIES, because we represent the word of GOD.

The Propagandist wrote:There isn't any reason to rewrite the Constitution. It is a well thought out framework of a government for a free people. And, in their wisdom, the Founders provided a way to amend it, so that different Americans in different times could make different provisions to best fit their different needs.

Unfortunately, far too many people think it's written in stone, sacrosanct for all eternity, forcing us to always live in 1787. And it just ain't so.

What's your thinking about the recent spate of end runs around the constitution?

The executive branch can issue a decree, and it might take years for its constitutionality to be decided by the courts, during which irreparable damage can be done.

The Founders wrote the Constitution specifically to make some parts of the government a slow, lumbering, clanking bit of machinery. Small changes, such as a revenue bill, may happen quickly; but larger changes, all the way toward amendments, will take a lot more effort.

Now, as concerns the executive branch, in the separation of powers, Congress makes the laws, the executive puts those laws into force, and the judiciary gets to decide if, constitutionally, either of them was authorized to do what they did.

Executive orders concern ONLY how the executive branch operates. They do not confer any new powers; they deal with any changes of HOW the laws are enforced within the authority given to it, first by the Constitution, and later by Congress.

The judicial branch will not get involved until a controversy arises, and suit is lodged in a federal court. Then, resolution of the controversy will wind its way through the federal court system Congress has set up until it MAY reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which is separate and apart from either Congress or the Executive. The use by Republicans of holding up nominations in the Senate simply because Obama proposes the candidates leaves a lot of vacancies, which may be the cause of the slow process of resolving the controversy, as you mentioned.

If the process is too slow for you, blame the Republicans for not filling the vacancies on federal courts in a timely manner.

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”― George W. Bush

Parker v. District of Columbia (PDF), 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. App. 2007) IS a cite! And yes, it was accepted for review by the Supreme Court. But since you are not bright enough to know that without a link, here it is: http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

... The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Second Amendment this term was precipitated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision in Parker v. District of Columbia (PDF), 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. App. 2007). There, the D.C. Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that three District of Columbia laws regarding private gun ownership - namely a ban on new registration of handguns, a ban on carrying a pistol without a license, and a requirement that firearms be kept unloaded and locked - violated the Second Amendment. The court held that individuals have a right under the Second Amendment to own handguns for their own personal protection and keep them in their home without placing a trigger lock on them. This is the first decision since the Supreme Court decided Miller in which a federal court overturned a law regulating firearms based on the Second Amendment.

Following the D.C. Circuit’s decision not to rehear the case, the District of Columbia Government filed a petition for certiorari for review of the decision by the Supreme Court. The documents before the Supreme Court at the petition for certiorari stage have been collected here.

On November 20, 2007, the Supreme Court granted (PDF) the petition for certiorari. The Court framed the question for which it granted review as follows: “Whether the following provisions – D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 – violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The briefs on the merits by the District of Columbia and respondent Dick Anthony Heller, as well as amicus briefs by some 67 “friends of the court,” have been collected here.

In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment. ...

If I may interject ...

Any decision in the D.C. Circuit has no relation to the states. D.C. is under the direct control of Congress, as per the Constitution.U.S. Const., Art. I, Sect. 8, clause 17.

The difference comes when the controversy reaches the U.S. Supreme Court which renders a decision which applies stare decisis (precedent) throughout the whole country in any similar controversy.

If the Court says it is this way, even if the suit began in D.C. circuit, it becomes precedent for all federal and state courts.

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”― George W. Bush

Any decision in the D.C. Circuit has no relation to the states. D.C. is under the direct control of Congress, as per the Constitution.U.S. Const., Art. I, Sect. 8, clause 17.

The difference comes when the controversy reaches the U.S. Supreme Court who renders a decision which applies stare decisis (precedent) throughout the whole country in any similar controversy.

If the Court says it is this way, even if the suit began in D.C. circuit, it becomes precedent for all federal and state courts.

That is correct. Ironically if the anti-gun nuts hadn't pushed their loss after Parker, there wouldn't have been a Heller and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) may have never happened or may have gone their way.

Ranger06 wrote:That is correct. Ironically if the anti-gun nuts hadn't pushed their loss after Parker, there wouldn't have been a Heller and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) may have never happened or may have gone their way.

BINGO! You finally figured it out. To bad someone else had to help you.

Max M. Haiflich, Jr.Free = no regulations = survival of the fittest = SomaliaSo in summation, the Conservative Republican’s Political Platform is, LIES, MORE LIES, OUTRAGIOUS LIES, and DAMN STUPID LIES, because we represent the word of GOD.

That's nice, but your "cite" didn't match what you pasted. You now claim you cited Parker but wrote nothing about Parker. You pasted a quote from Heller but never gave the source as Heller.

You really don't know the difference between a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision and a Supreme Court case.

And wow. You're smart enough to post a link I already gave and somehow think you accomplished something. You even quoted my post where I've listed the link already.

What I quoted was stated in the link I gave, which also linked to yours. My link discusses the whole, not the pieces you wanted.

What you pasted you wrongly attributed to Parker. You would probably still be under this illusion had I not correctly pointed out you didn't cite Parker with your paste but Heller. Your link was the same one I posted some 22 minutes earlier. About time you caught on, captain obvious.

Last edited by Ranger06 on Sun May 05, 2013 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ranger06 wrote:That is correct. Ironically if the anti-gun nuts hadn't pushed their loss after Parker, there wouldn't have been a Heller and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) may have never happened or may have gone their way.

BINGO! You finally figured it out. To bad someone else had to help you.

For someone who can't figure out the difference between a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision and a Supreme Court case, you're really stupid.

That's nice, but your "cite" didn't match what you pasted. You now claim you cited Parker but wrote nothing about Parker. You pasted a quote from Heller but never gave the source as Heller.

You really don't know the difference between a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision and a Supreme Court case.

And wow. You're smart enough to post a link I already gave and somehow think you accomplished something. You even quoted my post where I've listed the link already.

What I quoted was stated in the link I gave, which also linked to yours. My link discusses the whole, not the pieces you wanted.

What you pasted you wrongly attributed to Parker. You would probably still be under this illusion until I correctly pointed out you didn't cite Parker with your paste but Heller. Your link was the same one I posted some 22 minutes earlier. About time you caught on, captain obvious.

Wrong, not only did I read the whole thing, I've known it for a long time. One thing leads to another, what came before forms the final result. Yo can not understand result without knowing how it came to be. You think far too shallowly, wanting your simple, black/white, solutions.

Max M. Haiflich, Jr.Free = no regulations = survival of the fittest = SomaliaSo in summation, the Conservative Republican’s Political Platform is, LIES, MORE LIES, OUTRAGIOUS LIES, and DAMN STUPID LIES, because we represent the word of GOD.